this post was submitted on 18 Mar 2024
81 points (92.6% liked)

Privacy

32506 readers
965 users here now

A place to discuss privacy and freedom in the digital world.

Privacy has become a very important issue in modern society, with companies and governments constantly abusing their power, more and more people are waking up to the importance of digital privacy.

In this community everyone is welcome to post links and discuss topics related to privacy.

Some Rules

Related communities

much thanks to @gary_host_laptop for the logo design :)

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
k_o_t@lemmy.ml
tmpod@lemmy.pt
Yayannick@lemmy.ml
ranok@sopuli.xyz
81
Why haven't private carriers emerged yet? (lemmy.ml)
submitted 9 months ago by Charger8232@lemmy.ml to c/privacy@lemmy.ml
27 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

All questions are in bold for ease of use.

The major carriers in the United States participate in NSA surveillance (except for T-Mobile apparently, because it's based outside of the US. Except they bought Sprint, which participates.) and that, along with other major privacy issues, means that the market for private carriers is incredibly slim. When I found out that some carriers, such as Mint Mobile, piggyback off of Verizon, I wondered: What's stopping a carrier from simply E2EE everything from Verizon, and then using Verizon to transfer the data? Obviously, the encrypted data could still be collected and sold, but it wouldn't matter if the encryption was setup properly, right? I'm looking to better understand how this works, and, if a solution exists, potentially be the first to make it happen. The reason I'm not suggesting creating a carrier without piggybacking is due to the sheer cost and lack of support it would have, which would lead to poor adoption. Also, if carriers simply don't support E2EE, couldn't carrier locked phones install the software (since most install software anyways) required to make E2EE work?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Zak@lemmy.world 87 points 9 months ago (3 children)

You seem to be asking for telephone calls and SMS messages to be end-to-end encrypted. The underlying technologies were not designed with encryption in mind, so the only way for it to work would be for all the participants in a conversation to use an additional software layer. That was the method used by TextSecure.

The authors of TextSecure eventually figured out that a purpose-built Internet-based messaging protocol would be a better transport layer for secure messaging. If you're interested enough in secure messaging to be asking this question, you may be familiar with TextSecure's successor.

As for why a carrier wouldn't do this, I'll ask the inverse: why would they put in the effort when anyone who cares about secure communication just uses an encrypted messaging app?

[–] just_another_person@lemmy.world 15 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (3 children)

This is the right lead, but also OP asking the question doesn't seem to understand encryption in general, or PFS. We're all running on a decades old system now. Just move to something more modern like the Signal protocol if you're so freaked out about who is listening to your shit.

I swear, this thread just invites so many militia psychos and preppers...

[–] Charger8232@lemmy.ml 1 points 9 months ago

doesn’t seem to understand encryption in general

I have some degree of knowledge in how encryption works, not so much how cellular carriers work (on a low level).

[–] TheFriar@lemm.ee 0 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

This comment screams “why worry if you have nothing to hide?”

I mean, I’m sure that wasn’t your intention, but that’s the sense I got from it. I think they were trying to find out from someone more knowledgeable on the subject why a privacy-centered cell company, selling a phone that doesn’t track you with bloatware, and the extra layer of software, as mentioned above, isn’t standard.

I mean, I think the answer is money and pressure from regulators. Any time a privacy issue comes up, they start handwringing about “a safe haven for terrorists” and shit.

Also, while more people are becoming concerned with their privacy, it’s met with a lack of technical knowledge from most people. The question definitely hints at a lack of technical knowledge, but most people don’t possess that that aren’t in IT/tech themselves. I think that’s completely understandable.

[–] Imprint9816@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 9 months ago

Id put it this way. Until lack of encryption is an issue for carriers and not a source of revenue, there wont be an incentive.

[–] Charger8232@lemmy.ml 0 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

Why would they put in the effort when anyone who cares about secure communication just uses an encrypted messaging app?

Because not all traffic sent through cellular is messaging. People visit websites and whatnot when they're out-and-about. Not to mention that not everyone uses secure messaging apps.

P.S. I am very aware of Signal, thanks!

[–] Zak@lemmy.world 16 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Browsing most websites is E2EE. When it's not, that isn't something a phone carrier or ISP can fix because they don't control the web server. The traffic will be in the clear between the ISP and the server.

For secure messaging without a third-party app, phone carriers in the USA seem to be pretty onboard with Google RCS, though I think I'd recommend anyone who's serious about security use Signal instead.

[–] Charger8232@lemmy.ml 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Thanks for elaborating! I'm curious about two things

  1. How are DNS queries handled over cellular?

  2. Is traffic E2EE between the phone and the cell tower, or could anyone with a laptop sniff packets of phone calls OTA with Wireshark?

[–] Saik0Shinigami@lemmy.saik0.com 2 points 9 months ago
  1. Up to your device.
  2. Doesn't matter what layer 1 is if higher layers are encrypted.